UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4894

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
WARREN CHRISTOPHER BRADFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:10-cr-00512-AW-1)

Submitted:

April 18, 2012

Decided:

May 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, OFFICE OF

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Adam K. Ake,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Warren

Christopher

Bradford

appeals

the

sentence

of

twelve months and one day imposed following his conviction of

delay and destruction of mail by a postal employee, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 1703 (2006).

On appeal, Bradford argues that the

district

applying

court

enhancement

erred

pursuant

in
to

U.S.

Guidelines,

reviewing
we

review

findings

330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009).

sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

We affirm.

district

questions of law de novo.

six-level

Sentencing

(USSG) 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) (2010).

In

courts

application

fact

clear

of

for

of

the

error

and

United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d

In applying a sentencing enhancement,

the district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence

that

the

conduct

underlying

the

enhancement

occurred.

See

United States v. Grubbs, 585 F.3d 793, 803 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pursuant

to

USSG

2B1.1(b)(2)(C),

if

property

damage or destruction offense involved 250 or more victims, a

six-level enhancement is appropriate.

On appeal, Bradford first

argues that the district court erred in utilizing application

note 4(C)(i) to calculate the number of victims involved in the
offense.

Application note 4(C)(i) provides:

In a case in which undelivered United States mail was

taken, or the taking of such item was an object of the
offense, or in a case in which the stolen property
received, transported, transferred, transmitted, or
possessed was undelivered United States mail, victim
2

means (I) any victim as defined in Application Note 1;

or (II) any person who was the intended recipient, or
addressee, of the undelivered United States mail.
USSG 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i).

Bradford contends that, because

application note 4(C)(i) uses the word taken, it did not apply
to him, as he did not steal mail; rather, he only delayed or
destroyed it as charged in 18 U.S.C. 1703(a).
taken

mail

as

an

alternative

to

Because we read

stolen

mail

in

the

application note, and the note seeks to calculate victims as

persons who were deprived of their mail as a result of the
defendants actions, we conclude that the district court did not
err in applying USSG 2B1.1, cmt. n.4(C)(i) to Bradford.
Bradford

also

argues

that,

assuming

note

4(C)(i)

applies, the Government did not show by a preponderance of the

evidence that there were 250 or more victims.
however,

showed

approximately
least

five

800

full

that

Bradfords

delivery
days

delivery

addresses,

worth

of

and

mail.

The evidence,
route

that

Because

he

contained
burned

the

at

evidence

suggested that the five days worth of mail was randomly drawn
from Bradfords entire route, we hold that the district court
did not clearly err in determining that there were at least 250
victims.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED